Jump to content

Recommended Posts

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Which is why it's agood election for Labour to

> lose - the Tories will be beaten with Cutters once

> gain and the LDs will be called 'tories'...I

> notice a sudden refreshed step in the likes of

> Balls, Milliband, Clarke etc this morning. The

> wiser and more visionary members of the Labour

> party know that this is a good election to have

> lost.



I would not necessarily be so confident if I were them. It was a long wait the last time. The economy will eventually improve despite current doom and gloom and its hard to win an election if you are in opposition when the economy eventually picks up a head of steam.

We shall see. I think there is a lot of old school malevolence in the tory party that would like to see this fail and Cameron will have to stand up against if indeed he has the genuine will to make this work and he?s not just playing games.


I think Clegg will face similar from some sections of the LibDems but not to the same extent.


If this works it will be testament to both their leadership capabilities.

Well...


Boris is helping his twin brother "Horace" in looking for a job, maybe Dave or Nick have some useful contacts


Any suggestions ?


I'm "Boris" http://www.madametussauds.com/SiteImages/Assets/1/Default-sidebysidepx.jpg ..and I'm "Hh h hhhhorace" ( he has a stutter BTW )




Personally, I think Boris is the more "identical" of the twins




W**F

ruffers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Indeed, although I'd be astonished if this

> coalition hangs together that long.


If it requires a majority vote of no confidence in the government then is there anything to prevent the two staying together.


Vince Cable is the one in the spotlight now after announcing a higher CGT rate and possibly a bank levy too, the whole City will potentially be up in arms. That's the most likely thing that will bring this coalition down, if he is castigated and its generally seen that the Tories would be better without him and Clegg. The Tories then call a general election as they think they can win a clear majority, after all who is going to vote Lib Dem ever again if you are really voting Tory? Increased majority for the Tories will follow next time.

For the sake of common sense and the good of the country I sincerely hope you are wrong on all those counts.


I?m sure the city?s propaganda machines are already starting to grind into action. It should be similar to the protests a while ago. You here the employees speaking about whichever truth they are currently being sold a few hours before it breaks as a news story somewhere.

I am not unhappy at the change of Government. Not because I support the Conservatives, but because I felt that the Labour Goverment was tired and had run out of new ideas. Change was needed for catharsis.


Gordon saved our arses during the economic crash - at huge cost BUT that was required.


Questions have to be asked about why he introduced deregulation to the City that allowed the City institutions and high street banks to become inter-twined in such a way the bank account holder on the street was threatened by exotic and toxic financial instruments dreamt up in the city and based on dodgy loans given to poverty stricken Americans to buy over-priced badly built homes; but then, only Vince Cable was pointing out the stupidity of this.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Marmora Man Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > bequeathes a damaged

> > economy, the highest national debt and fiscal

> > deficit ever.

>

> What would the tories have done differently? There

> was a world-wide recession, lots of countries are

> in the same boat. I actually think that GB did an

> OK job of keeping the economy afloat.

>

> > left in disgrace after taking the country into

> two major

> > wars - losing the lives of over 500 British

> > servicemen and women.

>

> The Conservatives supported the war too, though.

> Only the lib dems were opposed to it, as I

> recall.

>

> By all means, pull Labour up on their failures -

> but try to do so objectively...


Jeremy - don't really want to get into tit for tat arguments but ........


1. Other countries were / are affected by the global financial crisis but not many (if any) had already built up a major deficit by funding so much of gov't spending by debt.


2. Yes Tories voted for the war - but they didn't write the dodgy dossier on which much of the parliamentary decision was based and, generally if Tories send troops to war they are given full support and back up. The Falklands was a war no one anticipated but all stops were pulled out to fund all necessary actions and equipment to back up the military - even to the extent of converting SS Canberra over a weekend to take helicopters and act as a hospital ship.

Actually a few countries had already over-borrowed before the crisis (Greece being the obvious example) but I take your point.


The dossier was totally lacking in substance... regardless of who cooked it up, anyone who agreed it was a basis for war is not without guilt!

jenny1840 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> i think surely the biggest cock ?


You say this in jest Jenny, however, much like an iceberg, 2/3 of the biggest cocks are hidden.


In reality they are even bigger cocks than they seem.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...